PDA

View Full Version : Good article on relocation candidates - Includes MLB.TV Map


SouthSide_HitMen
04-26-2006, 01:51 AM
Article - http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/relocation-as-vaporware/

Map - MLB.TV (Teams broadcasting rights with online blackouts for MLB.TV purchasers) - http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/astrodirt/discussion/419/

I agree with the article that there are no viable relocation cities in America at this point unless a city pays for an entire stadium with great terms for the team (and terrible ones for the city).

MLB's best options this point are contraction or moving four teams here:

http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/travel/images/japan_map_cities.gif

"Destitute" owners are making plenty of money with the revenue sharing scheme, something Bud wants to increase in the new CBA.

PaulDrake
04-26-2006, 10:05 AM
That map was made before the Expos became the Nationals. I wonder if there is an updated version.

Lip Man 1
04-26-2006, 11:08 AM
MLB will never 'expand' overseas in my opinion, no matter how 'viable' the options because of the travel difficulties, the cost for such, and the security concerns in a very uncertain and goofy world.

Now they may expand again in Canada or Mexico but that's it, in my opinion.

Lip

ondafarm
04-26-2006, 11:10 AM
What I find amazing is that Las Vegas and environs is subject to 'local' blackout of six different teams. That's 20% of MLB.

Luke
04-26-2006, 12:05 PM
MLB says that they care about travel (I think they do to some extent) but the real reason they wouldn't expand overseas is becuase of broadcast revenue. They already hate the late starts for west coast games becuase it means people in Chicago, NY, Boston, DC are already in bed when some games start, and thus, they have less viewers.

Unregistered
04-26-2006, 12:11 PM
MLB says that they care about travel (I think they do to some extent) but the real reason they wouldn't expand overseas is becuase of broadcast revenue. They already hate the late starts for west coast games becuase it means people in Chicago, NY, Boston, DC are already in bed when some games start, and thus, they have less viewers.That, and how would the players adjust when they play the the Japan team's home stadium? It's not like you can play the Angels and then play the Japan team 12 hours later... that would be a ridiculous home field advantage. Too many logistical problems...

SouthSide_HitMen
04-26-2006, 12:11 PM
MLB says that they care about travel (I think they do to some extent) but the real reason they wouldn't expand overseas is becuase of broadcast revenue. They already hate the late starts for west coast games becuase it means people in Chicago, NY, Boston, DC are already in bed when some games start, and thus, they have less viewers.

I have to agree with you on this. My "Japan Map" was more about getting four cities to build you a free stadium with terms highly favorable to the teams.

We are much more likely to see either the status quo (continued revenue sharing and several teams living off of welfare and not seeking to compete) or possibly a contraction of 2 or 4 teams if the Yankees get sick of this.

The Yankees generate 27% of merchandising (which they only get 3%) and are paying $77 million a year to dead beats. Meanwhile teams that do nothing to compete have seen their value increase more than almost every other team (Kansas City, Florida) due to the fact the revenue sharing is so lucrative they are guaranteed huge profits and market value is nothing but the present value of future revenue streams.

ondafarm
04-26-2006, 01:05 PM
I have to agree with you on this. My "Japan Map" was more about getting four cities to build you a free stadium with terms highly favorable to the teams.

We are much more likely to see either the status quo (continued revenue sharing and several teams living off of welfare and not seeking to compete) or possibly a contraction of 2 or 4 teams if the Yankees get sick of this.

The Yankees generate 27% of merchandising (which they only get 3%) and are paying $77 million a year to dead beats. Meanwhile teams that do nothing to compete have seen their value increase more than almost every other team (Kansas City, Florida) due to the fact the revenue sharing is so lucrative they are guaranteed huge profits and market value is nothing but the present value of future revenue streams.

The Yankee$ also get an absolute ton of money from their stupid Yes TV network. If they split the TV money from everyone evenly then they can keep their 27% of merchandising. Cut off their crock of gold which dwarfs everyone else's and they'd have to be a regular franchise and fall back to Earth with a dog-gone huge thud.

soxfanatlanta
04-26-2006, 01:20 PM
As many other posters have written before, contraction just ain't gonna happen - there are too many problems. Why not let another team back into the NY area? There were 3 teams there in the past, and since the population has grown (along with the popularity), it could easily support another franchise there. I know, I know - just wishful thinking.

Dadawg_77
04-26-2006, 01:26 PM
The Yankee$ also get an absolute ton of money from their stupid Yes TV network. If they split the TV money from everyone evenly then they can keep their 27% of merchandising. Cut off their crock of gold which dwarfs everyone else's and they'd have to be a regular franchise and fall back to Earth with a dog-gone huge thud.

Like it or not, a strong Yankees team is good for MLB. They make couple hundred million for the other owners in the league. Revenue sharing (Lux Tax), major boost in ticket sales when the Yankees come to town, increased NY ratings equal more cash from networks, and so forth. The best times for baseball have always come with a great Yankees team at the top. They are the prototypical wrestling heel, the bad guy people pay money to cheer against.

ondafarm
04-26-2006, 02:02 PM
Like it or not, a strong Yankees team is good for MLB. They make couple hundred million for the other owners in the league. Revenue sharing (Lux Tax), major boost in ticket sales when the Yankees come to town, increased NY ratings equal more cash from networks, and so forth. The best times for baseball have always come with a great Yankees team at the top. They are the prototypical wrestling heel, the bad guy people pay money to cheer against.


Who are you, Bryant Gumbel?

Instead of revenue sharing if the rest of the league shared in the success of the team and the revenue that comes with winning, that would be good for baseball.

Baseball had it's hardest time in recent years attracting kids throughout the country when the Yankee$ were winning their consecutive World Series and had the NY subway series against the Mets. New York and environs had great TV ratings, the rest of the civilized world hated it.

While I agree with the heel part, if the Yank$ sucked and everyone beat them regularly then ticket sales everywhere except NYC, would reach an all-time peak.

The schedule is already drawn up to favor the Yank$. Why the unbalanced schedule? So that the Yank$ and Red $ox play each other 19 times a year. Why do the Yank$ go on an extended road trip every April and another in May? So that they have more home dates during the summer, when attendance is maximized.

Want to get Tampa Bay out of the doldrums? If they won the AL East one year, as opposed to providing 19 easy games for the rest of the division, that would do it.

A lousy team in New York is what would be best for the league.

Luke
04-26-2006, 02:18 PM
Like it or not, a strong Yankees team is good for MLB. They make couple hundred million for the other owners in the league. Revenue sharing (Lux Tax), major boost in ticket sales when the Yankees come to town, increased NY ratings equal more cash from networks, and so forth. The best times for baseball have always come with a great Yankees team at the top. They are the prototypical wrestling heel, the bad guy people pay money to cheer against.
It kills me, but I actually agree.

What's important to remember though is that the Yankees need the rest of the league for them to be successful. The Royals may not be a "sexy" team, but no one is going to go to the Bronx to watch 25 men in pinstripes sit around and not do anything. The Yankees need teams to play to make money, and they (as well as the rest of MLB) should be concerned to a degree about the financial health of other teams. Of course the Royals don't help themselves with their awful drafting and dreadful FA signings.

On a side note. The Yankees are going to enjoy a fairly large exmption on the luxury tax becuase they're financing so much of their new stadium, so expect the payroll to grow even more

Dadawg_77
04-26-2006, 02:36 PM
Who are you, Bryant Gumbel?

Instead of revenue sharing if the rest of the league shared in the success of the team and the revenue that comes with winning, that would be good for baseball.

Baseball had it's hardest time in recent years attracting kids throughout the country when the Yankee$ were winning their consecutive World Series and had the NY subway series against the Mets. New York and environs had great TV ratings, the rest of the civilized world hated it.

While I agree with the heel part, if the Yank$ sucked and everyone beat them regularly then ticket sales everywhere except NYC, would reach an all-time peak.

The schedule is already drawn up to favor the Yank$. Why the unbalanced schedule? So that the Yank$ and Red $ox play each other 19 times a year. Why do the Yank$ go on an extended road trip every April and another in May? So that they have more home dates during the summer, when attendance is maximized.

Want to get Tampa Bay out of the doldrums? If they won the AL East one year, as opposed to providing 19 easy games for the rest of the division, that would do it.

A lousy team in New York is what would be best for the league.

I disagree and think history does as well. A winner doesn't in KC doesn't equal a winner in New York. First off, New York as a lot more people then KC, so the demand for tickets is higher in New York then KC even with a equal record of success. This would cause the tickets prices in New York to be higher thus more revenue for MLB. Most importantly, New York is the biggest TV market in the country. Thus more people will tune in to see a Yankees vs Tampa Bay game on ESPN then say A's vs Twins game, two good teams but smaller markets. Higher demand for the ESPN telecast means, higher Ad revenues and cable companies forking over $2 per subscriber to carry ESPN. Both of these factors leads to higher revenue for MLB. The reason small market teams haven't won much isn't because New York and bigger market spend more money, jut they have bad management which can't adjust to the new game and owners pocketing shared revenues instead of spending it on their product.

BTW, Tampa Bay might get out of the doldrums because they finally got rid of the idiots running the place.

Malgar 12
04-26-2006, 03:16 PM
As many other posters have written before, contraction just ain't gonna happen - there are too many problems. Why not let another team back into the NY area? There were 3 teams there in the past, and since the population has grown (along with the popularity), it could easily support another franchise there. I know, I know - just wishful thinking.




If not for the anti-trust exemption there would be four (or more) teams in NY tomorrow.

ondafarm
04-26-2006, 03:24 PM
I disagree and think history does as well. A winner doesn't in KC doesn't equal a winner in New York. First off, New York as a lot more people then KC, so the demand for tickets is higher in New York then KC even with a equal record of success. This would cause the tickets prices in New York to be higher thus more revenue for MLB. Most importantly, New York is the biggest TV market in the country. Thus more people will tune in to see a Yankees vs Tampa Bay game on ESPN then say A's vs Twins game, two good teams but smaller markets. Higher demand for the ESPN telecast means, higher Ad revenues and cable companies forking over $2 per subscriber to carry ESPN. Both of these factors leads to higher revenue for MLB. The reason small market teams haven't won much isn't because New York and bigger market spend more money, jut they have bad management which can't adjust to the new game and owners pocketing shared revenues instead of spending it on their product.

BTW, Tampa Bay might get out of the doldrums because they finally got rid of the idiots running the place.

Let me qualify my position.

The debate is not if the Yankee$ win one year vs. the Royals win one year. Nobody is so stupid as to believe that doesn't mean more money, more TV and more merchandise for the league if the Yankee$ win it.

The debate is between if the Yankee$ dominate for a decade and only one or two other teams in the league have a chance of contending. Assume that one or two teams come from the 'best' four other franchises in the league.

What does this do for the league?

Yanks ticket sales are great, every year.

One or two other teams have good ticket sales in a cycle.

The other 'best' franchises (2 or 3) have decent ticket sales.

The rest of the league has lousy ticket sales.

In 1999, the Yanks won their 2nd straight pennant.
Boston, Cleveland and Texas all won 90+ games.

Attendance was over 40K in Baltimore, Cleveland and New York.
over 30K in Seattle, Texas and Boston.

Baltimore had the new stadium and Ripken mania. Seattle had a new park as well.

So three teams had really good sales, three others solid and eight had fair to poor sales.

On the occasion when one of the underachieving teams moves into the competitive spot for a few years, it's ticket sales go way up and will decline much slower than the actual team will. So it's in the best interests of the league to have every team competitive about once a decade. This keeps ticket sales highest. Ticket sales = interest = TV ratings.

The Royals have been down for nearly twenty years. And their season ticket holder base has been slipping away. If they were competitive for two years in every decade, they probably would still have a solid season ticket holder base and decent TV ratings. The Tigers are back this year (for now) but thye've been cellar dwellers for a decade. Their season ticket holder base was terrible. If they compete for the next three years and maybe win one division title, then their fans will put up with seven or eight years of over-matched rookies and has-beens.

But those things won't happen as long as the Yankee$ walk away with the playoffs every year. As long as the Yanks can buy the best players off of everyone else's organization, and their money is so disproportinate as that to be true right now, then several clubs just won't be able to put together a team for serious contention. They outbid the Red Sox for Damon.

That is bad for baseball.

dickallen15
04-26-2006, 04:29 PM
Who are you, Bryant Gumbel?

Instead of revenue sharing if the rest of the league shared in the success of the team and the revenue that comes with winning, that would be good for baseball.

Baseball had it's hardest time in recent years attracting kids throughout the country when the Yankee$ were winning their consecutive World Series and had the NY subway series against the Mets. New York and environs had great TV ratings, the rest of the civilized world hated it.

While I agree with the heel part, if the Yank$ sucked and everyone beat them regularly then ticket sales everywhere except NYC, would reach an all-time peak.

The schedule is already drawn up to favor the Yank$. Why the unbalanced schedule? So that the Yank$ and Red $ox play each other 19 times a year. Why do the Yank$ go on an extended road trip every April and another in May? So that they have more home dates during the summer, when attendance is maximized.

Want to get Tampa Bay out of the doldrums? If they won the AL East one year, as opposed to providing 19 easy games for the rest of the division, that would do it.

A lousy team in New York is what would be best for the league.

The Yankees pay into a revenue sharing system, and a luxury tax on their payroll. Teams like the Marlins and DRays get as much as $60 million a year from these taxes, each, yet their payrolls are pathetic. Tampa Bay isn't going to get out of any doldrums until they have an ownership group that cares as much about winning as they do lining their pockets with cash they didn't earn. Same with the Marlins and their ridiculous $15 million payroll. How do you develop a fan base if the intention is to make money rather than win? Not all fans are stupid sheep like on the Northside of our fine city. A lousy team in NY would only make TB's attendance go even lower.

Dadawg_77
04-26-2006, 04:42 PM
Let me qualify my position.

The debate is not if the Yankee$ win one year vs. the Royals win one year. Nobody is so stupid as to believe that doesn't mean more money, more TV and more merchandise for the league if the Yankee$ win it.

The debate is between if the Yankee$ dominate for a decade and only one or two other teams in the league have a chance of contending. Assume that one or two teams come from the 'best' four other franchises in the league.

What does this do for the league?

Yanks ticket sales are great, every year.

One or two other teams have good ticket sales in a cycle.

The other 'best' franchises (2 or 3) have decent ticket sales.

The rest of the league has lousy ticket sales.

In 1999, the Yanks won their 2nd straight pennant.
Boston, Cleveland and Texas all won 90+ games.

Attendance was over 40K in Baltimore, Cleveland and New York.
over 30K in Seattle, Texas and Boston.

Baltimore had the new stadium and Ripken mania. Seattle had a new park as well.

So three teams had really good sales, three others solid and eight had fair to poor sales.

On the occasion when one of the underachieving teams moves into the competitive spot for a few years, it's ticket sales go way up and will decline much slower than the actual team will. So it's in the best interests of the league to have every team competitive about once a decade. This keeps ticket sales highest. Ticket sales = interest = TV ratings.

The Royals have been down for nearly twenty years. And their season ticket holder base has been slipping away. If they were competitive for two years in every decade, they probably would still have a solid season ticket holder base and decent TV ratings. The Tigers are back this year (for now) but thye've been cellar dwellers for a decade. Their season ticket holder base was terrible. If they compete for the next three years and maybe win one division title, then their fans will put up with seven or eight years of over-matched rookies and has-beens.

But those things won't happen as long as the Yankee$ walk away with the playoffs every year. As long as the Yanks can buy the best players off of everyone else's organization, and their money is so disproportinate as that to be true right now, then several clubs just won't be able to put together a team for serious contention. They outbid the Red Sox for Damon.

That is bad for baseball.

Last year MLB saw record attendance, if I remember the ad correctly it was 75 Million tickets sold. Now this is record because of the increased population but it still was set when Yankees were one of the best teams in the game. 2004 destroyed 2005 in TV ratings for the post season. The reason the Royals, Rays and other team continue to do bad is their management and not the Yankees. The teams like to blame the Yankees and other big market teams because it help relieve the pressure their fans could put on the the team for a lack of a quality product.

As for the Marlins, actually it might be a good move. What is the difference between a 60 win season and a 70 win season. If the Marlins thought they couldn't keep the team together, if I was a fan, I would rather seem them sort out which young kids can play then, sign a bunch of retreads to win 70 games.

SouthSide_HitMen
04-26-2006, 05:07 PM
A lousy team in New York is what would be best for the league.

I think 30 owners including the Mets and Red Sox would disagree on this one.

The Yankees had two successful runs, 1976 - 1981 (4 AL Pennants, 2 World Series Championships) and 1996-2001 (4 World Championships & 1 AL Pennant) in the past 40 + years for 6 Championships total.

The Lakers won 9 titles, the Bulls 6 Championships in less than a decade and the Celtics won 16 titles in 30 years.

Three NFL teams (Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Dallas) won 5 championships each with the 49ers doing it in 13 years and the Packers won 5 NFL Championships / Super Bowls in 7 seasons.

Montreal won 10 cups while Edmonton has won 5 Stanley Cups while the Islanders brought home 4 straight since expansion.

The fact is people love dynasties. Fans want them to continue and fans of other teams want them to fail. You get the general public interested and expand the fan base. The common thread through all of these runs is that they ended at somepoint and other teams started winning. No team in unbeatable - not even the Yankees who have not won a title in this millennium.

I rather have the Yankees compete every year and have someone knock them off than have the situation baseball had in the 1980s where no team was excellent for a sustainable period.

I think fans and I know owners would rather have a team or two everyone had an opinion on than 30 Seattle Seahawks where people are pretty much apathetic except for the hometown fans.

ondafarm
04-26-2006, 05:08 PM
The solutions is simple.

All TV money is equally split among all teams. You get to keep your gate and radio money. Set a spending floor for all teams, roughly at the share of the TV money. The floor is minimum of player salaries, signing bonusses and cash paid for acquiring prospects.

The owners only get profits from the gate and radio money.

Then you'd see tight fisted-idiots really getting hammered and well-run and popular teams doing well. New York would still have an advantage, just not as big a one, but everyone would compete, if not this year, when all the prospects they've had to buy come to fruition.

SoxEd
04-26-2006, 06:49 PM
Why not let another team back into the NY area? There were 3 teams there in the past...



This is, IMO, what Loria is trying to achieve by fielding his current Major League Marlins lineup.

He's trying to make the sport as a whole look ridiculous until Bud et al get so embarrassed that they let him relocate to the NYC Goldmine, with the License-to-print-Money known as a Major League Baseball franchise.

I don't necesarily blame him for doing this as a Businessman.
Especially given the (non-) viability issues of operating a franchise in Florida.

As a Baseball fan, however, I regard him as deserving of execration, castigation, and indeed excoriation - with extreme prejudice.

The Marlins probably ought to be allowed to relocate to NYC, but NOT with Loria owning ANY of the franchise IMO.

Maury
04-27-2006, 04:08 PM
On Contraction... will... never... happen...
Revenue Sharing, not Contraction, the Issue to Watch (http://www.maurybrown.com/?p=44)

SoxSpeed22
04-27-2006, 04:48 PM
MLB will never 'expand' overseas in my opinion, no matter how 'viable' the options because of the travel difficulties, the cost for such, and the security concerns in a very uncertain and goofy world.

Now they may expand again in Canada or Mexico but that's it, in my opinion.

LipThe economics of foregin countries makes it a lot more complicated. Canada is the only fit because they have the closest economic value to the US.
Paul Tagliabue considered having an NFL team in Mexico, but it could not happen because of economic differences.

Flight #24
04-27-2006, 04:51 PM
On Contraction... will... never... happen...
Revenue Sharing, not Contraction, the Issue to Watch (http://www.maurybrown.com/?p=44)

I'm not sure Minnesota's a great example as they've supposedly got a pretty good set of young talent, so I'm assuming that would correlate with at least decent spending on scouting, minor leagues, etc. Those are all things that would fall under "appropriate uses of revenue sharing dollars" the way I read the CBA. The problem comes in when they say "Hey - we spent all our revenue sharing on 'talent'", but don't spend any of their actual profits from concessions, tickets, etc on the same.

But that's not based on any data.